How to become your own stop motion animator

If you've got some extra time this summer, get creative with this little film project.

I've been fascinated with stop-motion animation from childhood. Still, growing up in the 1980s, the cost and knowledge barrier to entry for anything greater than a flip book was just too high for me. Fortunately things have changed immensely, and today all you need to make one is a camera and a computer.

Now, movement can be simulated with a series of pictures that change slightly with each exposure. But it takes quite a bit of timing and skill to make a great or even good video using this technique. Lacking this, something passable can be made with items you probably have around your house. Don't expect this to be easy though, the early motion picture rule was 24 different pictures had to be taken per second of video if you wanted a somewhat realistic effect. A slower frame rate can be used, but things won't appear to flow smoothly.

I've tried this technique several times, but one of my favorite creations is called “Birth of a PVC Man,” which, at 21 seconds long, took my friend Jason Underwood and me several hours to shoot and produce. Additionally, I had to actually build the PVC man, as detailed here.

The setup

To take pictures for this video, I used a Canon T2i camera mounted to a tripod. A remote trigger was used to keep from having to physically manipulate it for every shot. Jason manipulated and triggered the camera, while I moved and slowly assembled the PVC man.

I could have done both myself, but having someone helping saved a massive amount of time. Besides, it was great to have someone to bounce ideas off of.

Shooting

When shooting this little film, we had to think about how far the head or arms would move in one second and divide this up according to how many frames per second the video would show. This particular video was produced at a somewhat choppy 10 frames per second, so for the roughly 16 seconds of motion, we took 161 frames! It took some patience, but eventually we got the shots we needed.

Production

For this video, I used a batch photo processor called “Phatch” to shrink the images to a usable size (640 x 427) for my modestly powered computer. From here, we converted the photos converted into an animated GIF using GIMP, a free Photoshop-like program. If you prefer, GIMP can be used to convert files with the Batch Image Manipulation (BIMP) extension. These photos can then be imported into your video production software to be animated.

In the past, I've imported the animated GIF into the Windows XP version of Movie Maker, which is able to handle such files. This is a reasonable choices if you really want to only use free tools, even though it doesn't allow you to set the duration shorter than 1/8th of a second. To make the video have a higher frame rate, one has to produce the movie, then re-import the resulting video. You can then increase the video speed appropriately. Apparently iMovie has similar restrictions—.1 second per frame minimum—so this technique should be applicable to Mac users as well.

If that seems like a lot of work, you're absolutely correct. With my new SSD-equipped hardware and better software—CyberLink PowerDirector—things have improved. I can now just import the images directly into this program, and speed up the duration to 1/24th of a second (or whatever I had in mind). This skips the photo editing procedure altogether.

Some improvements on PVC Man’s origin

There are a few improvements on this video that would have made it even better. A different lighting setup, including eliminating shadows, would be the first on this list. Also, keeping the camera's settings constant, rather than letting the camera's processor decide what was best for each shot would have resulted in a greater consistency between frames.

Try it Yourself

Even if you don't have a DSLR camera like the one used in this video, you can do the same thing using something much cheaper. For my first stop-motion videos, I actually used an Env2 “feature” phone. If you're reading this website, there's a good chance you have something better available, so why not give it a try?

Jeremy Cook is an engineer with 10 years experience. In his spare time, he's an avid maker and experimenter, and he enjoys writing about his passion. Follow him on Twitter@JeremySCook.

19 Reader Comments

Ugh this is ridiculous, it's simply not true, and even if 24 fps was somehow past the limit of what we can see(it's not); the limit is not something that can be described in frames per second, our eyes are not cameras. The fps limit would differ between different situations and content.

Edit: if this seems like random rambling, it's because he edited the article

Ugh this is ridiculous, it's simply not true, and even if 24 fps was somehow past the limit of what we can see(it's not); the limit is not something that can be described in frames per second, our eyes are not cameras. The fps limit would differ between different situations and content.

As an example of this, the black -> white -> black transition can be detected down to about 1/300 of a second, (300 FPS) but a white -> black -> white transition won't be detectable nearly as quickly. 24 FPS is the minimum for smooth motion in most situations, and 60 FPS is enough to cover the vast majority of real-world transitions.

The average human can distinguish motion from about 12-72fps. Nice to see something about stop frame animation, in my youth my brothers and I used a MiniDV camera and FrameThief software. I wish they had something like that for my Panasonic GH2…

Once you've got image files, Quicktime Player 7 has an Open Image Sequence option that makes the creation of the video from the image files extremely easy. Has options ranging from 60 FPS to 10 Seconds per frame. Select the first frame of the sequence, select frame rate, and you're done! Great for time lapse photography and stop-motion video.

I do know people that have shot hundreds of pictures at sunset to make time lapse videos of the sun going down, the clouds moving, lights coming on. If you have a good view, this can be an interesting time lapse project. Of course, time is compressed ** so any trees blowing in the breeze can look choppy. A calm day is best. Buildings done blow in the breeze.

If you have a somewhat fancy DSLR (and some mirrorless), the camera may have a time lapse feature. Mine lets me set the time between shots for up to 999, I think. Something like that. Might be worth checking the owner's manual. I imagine some P/S cameras might do this.

Anyway, as noted, manual settings are best.In addition to exposure, consider setting white balance manually. Use some preset or something.

** Because they may take a picture only every several seconds and then make the movie at 20-something frames/s. No reason to take images at 5 fps for a sunset. Although, the sun will slide behind a ridge quickly. Several seconds and it is gone.

Or watching some early claymation creations present in Frank Zappa's "Baby Snakes" concert video as it contains some really cool old claymation techniques, with the bonus of an hour or two of Frank and the band jamming.

I remember doing some of this back in college, using an old timey tape editor. Thousands of dollars worth of gear, days of prep and rehearsal (included camera moves and a lot of clay figures) and hours of watching the tape machine pre-roll 5 seconds, roll for 4 seconds and 29 frames, see the record light come on for a flash, then stop. We could see the animation build (or at least the last 5 seconds of it) over time but other than that we had no way of knowing if we were successful or not since we couldn't stop the program and begin again (although I don't recall why at this time).

If you have access to Linux, you can easily cobble together a video using MEncoder. Pair that with ImageMagick (an easy, command-prompt-based photo editing tool useful for large batch edits), and you're set.

I think you can go straight to a GIF with ImageMagick, but it's been a while.

I used the above for years to convert time-accurate CFD results from their stop-motion frames to videos for presentations. Setting up a batch script to resize/scale, crop, edit, and then mash them together isn't very difficult (and a good tutorial project to boot).

It doesn't seem to be well known but Virtualdub has great support for timelapse video and unlike many others, I find it very efficient. You need to make sure all your photos are sequentially numbered (which may take a little work first for a large number of photos) and then simply open the first photo in Virtualdub at which point the software will then automatically add the rest into sequence. You can then use many of the other handy Virtudub tools such as resizing, cropping, deflickering etc. and can produce a reasonable selection of outputs.

In particular it's very efficient, I came across this as a solution when trying to produce a 10,000 image timelapse one a Core 2 Duo 2Ghz laptop with 2GB ram and most of the software I tried just bombed out. However Virtualdub handled all the photos as well as resizing and cropping them producing a video in a reasonable amount of time.

“One of the challenges for referees is that the human eye can handle only approximately 16 images per second, which means the ball needs to be behind the line for at least 60 milliseconds,” Rolf Dittrich, the spokesperson for GoalControl, told Ars by e-mail.

“However, in some cases the ball is only behind the line for a few milliseconds before a player kicks it back or it rebounds back into the field of play, with the result that the human eye cannot see whether the ball has crossed the line," Dittrich said. "The ball can only be detected by the human eye at a speed of 12 kilometers per hour or less, whereas nowadays players are able to shoot at a speed of over 120 kilometers per hour.”

Possibly unnecessary summary of my understanding for those that don't want to read the link.

The guy quoted works for the company that makes equipment to determine if a soccer football has crossed the goal line. Obviously, we can see things that move faster than 12 kph. But he is talking about resolving quick changes of movement like a soccer ball hitting the goal pole and bouncing just inside the goal or just outside. I guess we have a chance of tracking it to the first point but lose the ball when it changes direction in a heartbeat. Split second, really. Before our mind can readjust, the ball is already away from the goal line, the referee has made some bone headed call, and the fans are pissed. Bam, that fast. :^|

“One of the challenges for referees is that the human eye can handle only approximately 16 images per second, which means the ball needs to be behind the line for at least 60 milliseconds,” Rolf Dittrich, the spokesperson for GoalControl, told Ars by e-mail.

“However, in some cases the ball is only behind the line for a few milliseconds before a player kicks it back or it rebounds back into the field of play, with the result that the human eye cannot see whether the ball has crossed the line," Dittrich said. "The ball can only be detected by the human eye at a speed of 12 kilometers per hour or less, whereas nowadays players are able to shoot at a speed of over 120 kilometers per hour.”

Possibly unnecessary summary of my understanding for those that don't want to read the link.

The guy quoted works for the company that makes equipment to determine if a soccer football has crossed the goal line. Obviously, we can see things that move faster than 12 kph. But he is talking about resolving quick changes of movement like a soccer ball hitting the goal pole and bouncing just inside the goal or just outside. I guess we have a chance of tracking it to the first point but lose the ball when it changes direction in a heartbeat. Split second, really. Before our mind can readjust, the ball is already away from the goal line, the referee has made some bone headed call, and the fans are pissed. Bam, that fast. :^|

That quote was ALSO called out on being wrong and absolutely baseless. Again, if you ever try to think of the limits of human vision, and you use the word "frames", you're doing it wrong. We do not see frames. We are not cameras.

A torn conveyor belt in a manufacturing facility is moving along at a speed equivalent to a fast walk. It is possible to see the belt is torn but it is pretty hard to tell much about the tear. As it passes me, it is a blur.

If I walk beside the belt or remain motionless but track one point of the belt with my eye, I can see the tear. I might guess because the tear in the belt is staying in the same position relative to me eye and I have time to 'take a good look'. Anyway, it is just the way it works.

To see things moving faster, people use strobes to freeze the action. It is one thing to see a static image (even a picnic for 13 ms) and another to deal with a moving thing. I can track the soccer ball with my eye but when it changes direction quickly, I aint tracking it...

And back to the point in the article about the soccer guy.

+ this was intended to be a follow-up to the post below.. but I found I hadn't hit 'submit' for the first comment...

... That quote was ALSO called out on being wrong and absolutely baseless. Again, if you ever try to think of the limits of human vision, and you use the word "frames", you're doing it wrong. We do not see frames. We are not cameras.

Yes, there was some discussion about the comment. The quote was called out as being wrong and absolutely baseless. But there were other comments counter to the ones you mention...

Of course, we aren't cameras. I think most people would recognize the fellow used 'frames' as a way for people to relate to the concept. Mmm, even an article at MIT uses 'frames'. Again, I think the idea is to give a reference point for a unit of time. A 'frame' is a discrete image and MIT is talking about being able to identify a discrete image... frame

The concept proposed in the soccer article is that people aren't able to see/respond to xxx thing at ttt time. The expression 'faster than the human eye' and that expression has been around for a while...

Obviously, I don't see jerky movementMovement and my perception of it is continuousThere is a point, though, where something is too fast for me to respond to it. This means I saw the soccer ball hit the goal post but it was so fast I couldn't tell if it was half on this side or the other. This does happen to me... Apparently, it also happens to soccer referees who make a call but were off just a bit when video is reviewed..

Following the article about the soccer equipment, people commented that flashes of light much faster than 16 frames per second can be perceived. There was agreement in other comments but it was also pointed out that detecting a flash of light is different from what the soccer guy is talking about. It was also pointed out that contrast is important. A point of light in a dark room is different from a point of light in a bright room.

An article from MIT says people can identify images in 13 milliseconds. fastThey describe this as about 75 frames per second... They are talking about the rate the test images are shown.. if the fastest response time is 13 ms and this corresponds to 75 fps, then it is fair to say we can see/perceive images at 75 frames (images) per second.

MIT writes people can recognize scenes as images are shown to them. They use the example of a picnic or portrait. They also say it takes longer to decide where to place the eye next. Look next. The MIT article mentions some fast times, but I don't see those times for identifying an object as is it shown to me applicable for me drawing fine information from the image of the picnic... 'picnic' or 'pretty lady' was recognized but they don't mention in the article how much detail the participants recall... MIT

They didn't really say in the article, but I know I can see something (coin trick in the hand) but not really be able to know what happened. I have to go back and watch it in slow motion. I might remember there were three people at the picnic or the pretty lady had red hair. They don't mention detail... I may have missed it, but I am not sure if 13 ms was average human performance or possible limits. Obviously, being a test, many subjects would be involved, but how does the result compare to the typical person.

Also, there is the study of subliminal images. As an example of an unexpected thing that people see but don't really respond to, I wondered at what frame rate those images are shown... I found this and stopped right here 'Kennedy' in the movie Gladiator

Quote:

In the movie “Gladiator” the character Maximus is taken to be killed and the word “Kennedy” flashes on the screen. At the end when he is stabbed by Commodus, the word appears again. You can view it with a reliable DVD player when you slow it down.

Really. I have seen that movie several times and not noticed that. Certainly more unexpected than the soccer ball changing directions when it hits the goal post... still, an image shown for much more time than 13 ms and I never saw it... too fast for me to respond to and redirect my eye, I guess.

Anyway, I can see the soccer ball moving. I can track it. According to MIT, I would recognize an image of a soccer ball flashed on a screen as one frame out of 75... But, relevant to the discussion at hand, can I see the soccer ball change directions quickly and be able to precisely (and honestly) position it... or did I just see it hit the goal post. somewhere..

So, I couldn't say the soccer guy has no point. Based on my personal experience, I think he might have. Taking issue with his using the word 'frames' is another thing.